We don't need the Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4

GameZone writes, "It's an inevitable truth that we will see new gaming consoles from Microsoft and Sony sometime in late 2013. My view may be the minority, but I don't think we need a new Xbox or PlayStation console, unlike some people in the industry. I'm sure a lot of gamers want a new console just because it's something new to own, but I have a few problems with new consoles and the argument for them. Before you completely write me off, just let me explain my point of view."
(PS3, Xbox 360)

Speak for yourself. Core gamers need next gen consoles the ps4 and xbox 720. I've wanted these new consoles since over a year ago and I'm looking forward to the upgraded tech of everything to enhance realism

No one NEEDS consoles. That would suggest that you require them to survive. WANTING next-gen consoles is a different story.

If your a core gamer, then you would understand that upgraded tech and enhanced realism come at the expense to greater development costs. The more a game costs to make, the less creative leeway devs will be given because publishers will want them to focus on creating guaranteed hits(Halo, COD, Halo imitator, COD imitator etc.)

Logicwins couldn't be more spot on. It takes tremendous resources for developers to push hardware and even this gen, few developers can do it effectively. New hardware isn't suddenly going to change that because the hardware isn't the bottleneck for most devs.

And, like logic stated, the more money that becomes invested in a product, the less chances will be taken. We don't only see this in videogames. Many in the movie industry have commented in the past how ballooning budgets rob them of their creative freedom as everyone becomes involved to try to protect their investments. Video games aren't different in that regard. Even when the new gen arrives, don't expect too much.

Its not the developers, but the people who consistently buy the cod and the halo's. Publishers would always play it safe when they know people are going to jump on the perpetual sequels without thinking " hey didn't I just play this last year and the year before."

Not just that but also the fact that the core market is stagnant which means even if the game does sell, a good portion of whatever revenue it generates will get eaten up by the costs resulting in less profit. And this is why the industry NEED the casual crowd.

The key is if the software language is coded as efficiently as is can be for the technology they serve.

Since there was no breakthrough in hardware that allowed the use of GPGPU techniques, GPGPU coding can be done on the PS3 and 360 as well as the Wii U. The bad part is (and good part[in terms of extending the console life]) GPGPU as we know it has not been utilized on any console in a large way much at all at this time. In a way, on the PS3 is has been done more, but just in reverse in that the "GP" of the GPGPU has been done on the Cell and not the RSX (GPU).

The problem is that a lot of games haven't been optimized for use on the cell processor; which is why you get games like Black ops that isn't really as graphics intensive as a game like, say God of War, but doesn't run as efficiently when compared with God of War. The first big secret of the cell is that you run all of the heavy work through the cell, you would have plenty of ram for other things to do just like Julian Eggebrecht said... but the second theoretical part is that even when you do that, if after you run everything through the Cell you apply principles of GPGPU techniques to the RSX you should be able to have games that should be able to do the fabled 1080p, 60fps on games larger than the boards of Lair with no problem.

This is best guess here, but IF (a huge-frickin' if) someone comes up with an algorithm or efficient enough code to streamline the physics code and/or vector calculations coming to the cell to the degree that the code can ignore the RSX altogether (what I think the ultimate purpose of having the Cell-RSX setup was in the first place) you should have very efficient numerical data coupled with graphics code that has been bounced from the cell back to the RSX to be manipulated as GPGPU code, which should run very fast and even better with a higher resolution.

Basically, Cell for all of the math (if possible) RSX, ram for everything else (which should give you an even larger playground once GPGPU principles are applied).

Devs might "need" faster processors and more RAM, simpler system architecture, to deliver on promises made this gen which went quickly forgotten, but gamers have pretty much proven they'll take whatever they're given.

People wouldn't have bitched about Kinect, Blu-ray and an UD-DVD add on among other crap otherwise.

Think about it, even if the games were more "realistic" as you would say, the core gameplay is failing. Look at all the graphical powerhouse games. Almost all have failed once people look past the shiny new graphics. Only childish people want the next shiniest thing to look at but will be the first to complain when they realize the games suck. Answer this, what is something that can be done on next gen that just can't possibly be done right now??

It's funny that anyone agreed with Conzul since Watch Dogs will be on current consoles. The question is what can be done next gen that can't be done now on consoles. Graphics fall into the shiny object category that Mike mentioned. A better answer would be Planetside 2 or BF3 with the bigger maps and player count.

You don't need to buy next-gen consoles when they come out. You can stick with X360 and PS3 for the rest of your life but we both know that you will be first in line next year the get either one of the next-gen consoles buddy.

Yeah same here. Its funny cause if fools who write articles like this take a look at games like Far Cry 3 on consols and then see the game run on maxed out settings for the PC would they still say we don't need next gen or that graphics and performance ain't everything.

Being a "core gamer" has absolutely nothing to do with "needing" prettier graphics. If the next Xbox or PS don't add something other than prettier graphics that is actually useful in the game playing experience, then we don't "need" those systems...though, you might "want" them.

What we're going to see is a lot of JRPG devs/publishers(Sega, Level 5, Altus) moving to the PS Vita. Altus has already showed much interest in the console(P4: The Golden) because dev costs remain low. The Yakuza/Persona series have proven that a game doesn't need the latest tech to be incredible.

The next-gen will be more money focused than any other generation to date. Online multiplayer will be shoehorned into more games and we'll be seeing much more season passes.

Id have to agree with you 100% EXCEPT, I DO want to play certain games that each of these companies hold. Id like to play Gears of War (maybe if its better than 3) so that's M$' Xbox, I'd like to Play God of War, Uncharted and Infamous and the Heavy Rains of PlayStation and of course I love the great games of Nintendo AND their third party games that "somehow" no one spoke of this gen, but were there. So unless we can get a unified system.. I'm afraid we have to get them all.

Now I hear Apple and Valve want some also. LMAO. Yeah....better get a 2nd and 3rd jobs.

It's been long enough. I can say that I want a new Xbox/ps4. It has been way to long let the gamers decide we all want new hardware. I know the wii u just came out and to me throwing a touchscreen controller isn't cutting edge tech. I want to hear that next gen games look better than pc games. Bring it on Microsoft. Show us what you can do

yes... better visuals are always better... i dont know what to say dude... but how does better visuals not equal more fun? are you opposed to higher resolution screens? bluray? cg in movies? or are you happy with VHS quality puppeteering special effects movies?

since they will be a huge DOWNGRADE from the pc i play on right now, no, i don't really need them, but i still want them

i want new fresh console ip's (i still get them on the pc all the time) but my consoles don't even get turned on more than 3 times a year, why would they, 95% of the games are multiplat, they look 10x better on pc

i did play halo 4 for a week, and starhawk for a month, that is the extent of my console gaming this year

so, no, i could totally get by without ps4/nextbox, but i still want them, even though i know for sure, next gen consoles will have nothing on a current gen pc

the graphical leaps from console generation to generation are decreasing exponentially - i mean graphics are fairly realistic now, so it's impossible for the next 15 years to have the equivalent leaps from NES days to PS3.

totally disagree... there are a few generations you're missing between NES and PS3. The difference between PS2 and PS3 will be just as big a jump IMO as PS3 and PS4.

as far as comparing the platforms using screenshots that fill up half your screen... you will still notice a difference... but the difference will be even more if the screenshot was actually 1080p! better yet... even more of a difference if you're watching the VIDEOS running at FULL 1080p.

The realities are .....most people want more than just a game console at this point. PC gaming is making a resurgence and one of the bigger reasons is your pc no longer is stuck being in the office for many. Laptops and pc rigs are now 100% easier to hook to your TV's and get that big screen experience. multi tasking, playing high end games on your 50 inch TV all equates to what the mass consumer is now looking for in their game experience. Smany consumers have bought expensive huge screen TV's they want/expect to use them...and PC's are bridging that gap (big picture mode is another step in that direction).

Consoles have moved in the multi media direction, and they have had a degree of success in doing that. both the PS3 & 360 have media functions, web browsing, etc...HOWEVER... while the PC does all of these things pretty effortlessly consoles currently are merely able to do one thing at a time and that is directly related to their limited hardware and RAM. They still play great games...but its not simple to swap back and forth between Uncharted 3, Netflix and you web browser...its load screen after load screen to swap between the 3.

This is where new console hardware will evolve. The realities are Nintendo currently and MS and Sony will be launching boxes that are closer to PC's than ever before. And they have to be to survive.

bottom line, PS3 can barely handle rendering games in 720p let alone upscale to 1080p. and when it does, it sacrifices a lot. Aliasing shadow clipping lighting issues. True 1080p games should look as clear and smooth as a pixar blu ray movie - 60fps at full native 1080p, and looking beautiful with Anti aliasing tessellation hd lighting ray tracing etc... that would be awesome! Some compare games like Battlefield or crysis on ps3 and pc and say "they look similar, why upgrade". But that's so incorrect. There is a huge difference, and instead of comparing screenshots that fills up half your screen, compare by playing the game on a high end PC vs PS3 and you'll quickly notice the difference.

Consoles are relatively cheap (vs. iphone fanboys that pay $700 a year for a new phone). Buying 1 console every 7 years is not "too soon".

And once all our hardware is updated, developers will not have to port to a lesser playing field, and games will just start looking even better. Game engines will be upgraded as developers slowly develop less and less for the ps3 and xbox360.

I want the next gens of Sony and MSFT to come but don't want to pay more than $60.00 for a game. With each gen upgrade comes more expensive games and in some cases nicer looking but much shorter games. If after this long, devs like Bethesda and Ubisoft still have issues making games, what can we expect with next gen? I want it but don't want it to be rushed. On that point RROD, give it to us when good and ready.

Some Sega Genesis titles cost more than PS2 titles (remember Virtua Racing and Sonic & Knuckles with its lock-on technology?)

Each new gen DOES NOT increase the price of games. It's just that this gen the new R&D costs were pretty high at the start of the gen and the price of the games had to offset those expenses, hence the $60 price tags.

However, as the generation wears on -- as 2K Games CEO pointed out -- the tech gets cheaper, middleware is low enough in price that ANYONE who knows a thing or two about coding can make a game on a shoestring budget and more money is spent in optimizing a game than actually developing and producing it.

Realistically games should only cost $50. COD is literally recycled assets after recycled assets every year on end but they still charge $60. It's running on a four year-old engine.

For next-gen costs shouldn't be anymore than what they are now. All the software tech and middleware is already designed for next-gen hardware so there will no longer be high R&D costs like it was at the start of this gen, and it takes smaller teams to make higher quality games thanks to things like procedural physics and animation techniques that are available in engines like Unity, CryEngine and Unreal Engine. They just need the hardware capable of utilizing this tech to actually use it.

wasn't it just a couple years after the release of the PS3 that gamers began ranting at how they wanted next gen? this has been going on for years now. After the next playstation and xbox releases, give it 2 years and people will complain yet again.